Jordan versus Schenck: you don’t see this kind of Perry Mason stuff very often
First, some background on who Schenk is and why he was testifying in Congress yesterday:
Schenck was supposed to testify over his allegations that Justice Alito leaked court opinions in regard to the 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case. The reverend claimed he’d gotten information about the majority opinion on the case after Alito had dinner with mutual friends of Schenck’s. Alito denied this leak, yet the New York Times reported on a letter Schenck had sent to Chief Justice Roberts earlier this year making the claim that he had.
The idea, of course, was to discredit Justice Alito. Schenck was the Democrats’ star witness.
Now, the video. Watch Schenck’s demeanor especially starting at 1:53:
And of course, the leftist MSM acts like this scene didn’t happen or minimizes it. Here’s NPR with a long article that even mentions Jim Jordan questioning Schenck, but only says this about what transpired:
Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, including ranking member Jim Jordan of Ohio, expressed skepticism about Schenck’s story, which Jordan described as “8-year-old second-hand hearsay.”
Jordan noted that both the donor, Gayle Wright, and Justice Alito have denied being involved in leaking the information, and questioned Schenck’s motives for coming forward with the story.
No special reason to doubt Schenck’s truth-telling capacity, right? It’s just Jordan’s skepticism.
Then there’s Reuters, which doesn’t even mention Jordan nor any reason to doubt Schenck’s story.
The NY Times has previously covered Schenck’s accusation against Alito many times in the past, but as of this moment the paper appears to have skipped reporting on Schenck’s testimony yesterday. At least, I can’t find anything in a quick search.
The WaPo actually does cover the exchange – very briefly, and with nothing indicating how very explosive and embarrassing it was for Schenck. Here’s the passage, which shows you how to minimize without lying:
Jordan sought to undermine Schenck’s credibility as a witness Thursday by getting him to admit that some details in a book Schenck wrote about his work connected to the court were inaccurate. “You got the key detail wrong and now you remember an additional detail,” Jordan said after displaying a poster with text from Schenck’s book. “We’re supposed to take your word over Justice Alito’s word, over Gayle Wright’s word?”
According to the article, Jordan merely “sought” to undermine Schenck’s credibility – he didn’t actually undermine it, or at least the WaPo has no opinion whatsoever to offer on that. The article says that Jordan got Schenck to admit that “some details in a book Schenck wrote were inaccurate,” but actually the admission concerned a story Schenck made up of the whole cloth, a complete fabrication complete with other details. The WaPo makes it sound as though it was a something minor such as Schenck getting the date wrong, or describing what he was wearing as blue instead of gray. The reader could easily read the article and continue to think that Schenck was basically telling the truth and Jordan just a nitpicking meanie.
That’s how the MSM works. But still, Jordan’s questioning and Schenck’s answers were a sight to behold. Unfortunately, most of the MSM’s readers will never behold it.
The best part was when after being totally exposed Schenck then suddenly added that not only did he wink at his brother but he elbowed him also.
Have to hand it to this guy though he flat out knew that his Rehnquist anecdote was a lie and he was not going to repeat it under congressional oath.
As I mentioned yesterday that was great work by Jordan and by his staff to put all that together.
The little smile on the dark haired staffer of Jordan’s at the beginning is the look of someone that knows they have the goods on a witness.
Well, it’s a small thing, but enough to destroy Schenck’s credibility in his larger accusations.
As much as I appreciate the utter humiliation this witness suffered at the hands of Mr. Jordan…..that doesn’t cut it.
The media never reported it.
The Dems in the Committee continued their pathetic, illegal charade.
No one outside of a *tiny* handful of people will ever see this clip.
Even *if* you get a Democrat voter to see, they’ll dismiss it and it will not change their mind.
Unless and until the Republicans start putting these liars in jail…
Raiding their homes….
Destroying their businesses…
Razing their lives with lawfare…
NOTHING. WILL. CHANGE.
About the Schencks, I have to say its odd that they did a complete 180 on public policy questions with which they’ve been exclusively associated and did so when they were over the age of 55. You have to ask what sort of personal crisis they suffered, as there weren’t any external events which would generate something like that. I suppose there’s a more cynical explanation. I’m recalling the pseudonymous commenter who reacted to Douglas Kmiec and the ‘obamacons’ thus: “You have to ask how many of these guys have liberal wives or girlfriends…”
Das: You say nothing will change. That’s true if we don’t try to change it. Join Elon’s Twitter. Right click on the video, copy the link, and paste it into your first Tweet. I did, just now. If enough of us do that, it will go viral.
I greatly admire Jim Jordan; hope he could replace McConnell as Senate Minority Leader. Even more, if Joe Manchin has the courage to leave the Democrat party, Jordan could be Senate Majority Leader.
Jordan is in the House, not the Senate.
CapnRusty: Already done. I’ve been active on social media and in my personal life (for decades.)
I am personally and singularly responsible for the company I work for having a (hugely lenient) vaccine exemption…and I work at an EXCEPTIONALLY Left Wing outfit; I am an 20-year veteran Election Officer in my county; my wife is hugely active (behind-the-scenes) in running our local GOP county operation; I’m active on Twitter, Gab.
My college age children are BASED and fighting the good fight every single day.
I’m slowly, steadily, and unrelentingly red-pilling every friend I encounter.
My primary job in life is to be a guerrilla warrior for individual rights and ordered liberty that ONLY our Constitutional system can ensure.
BUT.
I could use some help from my fellow Republicans. Who, for the most part, seem more interested in scoring cute little gotcha moments than actually reversing the perversion and corruption that engulfs us.
CapnRusty:
I think you can be forgiven for thinking Jordan is in the Senate – he has a high profile. But he’s a member of the House. He hasn’t challenged McCarthy for the Speaker post, though. I don’t think it’s a job most people want. Even though it’s powerful it’s very difficult, and McCarthy has so much support it would be hard to get enough votes to get rid of him.
Art Deco:
His book purports to tell the story. The comments there are very very interesting. Some mention that there was some conflict with his family regarding his earlier positions, so that may be part of it. I have gotten curious about it now and may research some more.
One other thing I want to mention is that we know he was lying in the book about the SCOTUS “Reverend” thing and not just forgetful, because the moment Jordan mentions the topic Schenck becomes nervous and starts hedging. If he just was mistaken in his memory he would have insisted that Rehnquist had said “Reverend,” until Jordan proved he hadn’t by reading Schenck the transcript and playing the audio. Instead, Schenck immediately started equivocating and backing off from what he’d written, even before Jodan offered the evidence. That’s what I find so interesting about the video.
Das:
That’s why I described the media non-coverage. And that’s why my post ends this way:
That was a very effective cross by Jordan. It wasn’t the usual bloviating mess that most Congress members create when they try to question a witness. Watching the witness squirm when he realized he was caught in a lie was something else.
Kudos to Jordan and to whichever unnamed staffer discovered the lie.
Kate:
Small thing? That sort of lie is not a small one. It impeaches the witness quite effectively – except to the enormous number of partisans who need him to be telling the truth.
By the way, the subject matter of the lie happened to have been what a SCOTUS justice said, which makes it even more relevant than a lie about something entirely unrelated.
Ideological propagandists are inherently opposed to objective truth.
Neo and Kate:
Ooof! Talk about an “own goal!” Somebody get me the editing desk — change “Minority Leader” to “Speaker” — which would also be good.
Nice takedown.
But I’ve seen lawyers do the same thing. The best I ever saw was in a big money patent trial in Tyler, Texas federal court. The expert was from MIT and was testifying for Apple. The cross won the case. After the plaintiff’s lawyer (an engineer!) got done, the jury’s eyes just glazed over.
I did the same thing to Symone Sanders regarding her book. She now works for MSNBC and was the spokesperson for the VP and, before that, Bernie Sanders.
Symone is from Omaha and went to Creighton University.
She wrote a number of lies in her book, but the big one for me was how she lied about working as clerk (as an undergrad!) for a female federal judge. She actually worked for a state court judge I know. I also knew the former female federal court judge (now deceased).
It was an obvious lie, but she had to make herself look more important. And there’s no way anyone could mistake the palace that is the federal courthouse and the 100-year-old county courthouse.
Jordan was a star NCAA wrestler. Wrestling is a very tough sport. To be good, you have to be very tough both mentally and physically. Jordan exemplifies those characteristics. He competes and he competes to win. Glad he’s a Republican.
https://nwhof.org/national-wrestling-hall-of-fame/bio/2390
I did not know that Jordan had some legal training. He got a degree; apparently did not practice, but the training shows.
Cornhead: ” ..the jury’s eyes just glazed over.”
You mean that the plaintiff’s engineer/lawyer had “made the sale” so thoroughly that the jurors no longer needed to pay much attention?
My sense (admittedly incomplete) is that the underlying charge against Justice Alito is that he leaked his own draft of the Dobbs decision? Is this not correct?
How is it that the leak itself has not been settled as yet?
And how — supposing the high improbability Justice Alito was the leaker — how can the charge against him be brought without direct and irrefutable proof in hand?
Where is the Court in all this? Does the Court stand by in silence as its member Justice is thus slandered by implication? What the living hell is going on here?
In that clip Jordan sounds like Leonardo DiCaprio playing Howard Hughes in the Aviator.
Paul.
Yup. Apple’s lawyers tried to rehab the witness. Hopeless.
Plaintiff’s verdict.
The most interesting part of this episode to me is a question. Does this meant that a progressive justice leaked the Dobbs opinion? That would explain the need to muddy up Alito.
If a progressive justice is about to be outed as the Dobbs leaker, this accusation would give progressives the opportunity to claim that Alito did it first.
@ Bauxite > “If a progressive justice is about to be outed as the Dobbs leaker, this accusation would give progressives the opportunity to claim that Alito did it first.”
Excellent observation.
We know the Democrat’s usual MO is to try to pre-empt negative news about their side with a “what-about-the-Republicans” justification.
Much of the time, they are able to find something that can be spun the way they want, even though their interpretation is not really true.
But they will always point to some event that justifies their claims, even if they have to invent one.
@ Cornhead > “It was an obvious lie”
That was the first thing that struck me about the Schenck case.
Jordan had a tape and a transcript – IIRC Court proceedings are public records.
Even if not something the general public can obtain, they are available without too much difficulty to a lot of lawyers and judges.
Same thing in your example.
Did these people think that no one would ever look at what actually happened?
Obviously, up to now, no one was interested enough in Schenck’s lies to check them, in which case my second question is, why the lack of curiosity on the part of people who have no reason to support the Schencks’ version of events?
Does this meant that a progressive justice leaked the Dobbs opinion? That would explain the need to muddy up Alito.
I’ll wager the forensic technicians identified the leaker within a matter of weeks. You haven’t heard anything because (1) it was a common-and-garden staff member and dealt with by dismissal without public announcement or (2) it was an influential personage or someone on the patronage of an influential personage, and was dealt with through intramural deal-making.